March 25, 2008

Shut Up, You Freak!

Girlfriends and boyfriends, it's a regular freak show out there! Freaks, freaks and more freaks! Freaks everywhere you look. I'm gonna start a new kind of Disney World, and the main attraction (in more ways than one) is gonna be ... Freakland! We're all gonna have some serious fun at...Freakland!

So Billsy and our squeeze Lily were talking about DOMA. Lily came on strong, and the exchange seemed to get under Billsy's skin just a tad:

BC: Let me ask you this: do you believe there will be more or fewer efforts to ban gay marriage constitutionally around the country if a Massachusetts marriage has to be sanctified in Utah?

LL: I -

BC: Yes or no. Answer the question. We live in the real world here.

LL: Sir, I understand. It’s a political backlash.

BC: No, not a political backlash. As a substantive backlash: the lives of gay people. Will there be more or fewer gay couples free of harassment if the law is that every gay couple in America could go to Massachusetts, get married and it would then had it recognized in Utah?

LL: But when is that going to change if you’re not going to set a firm stance.

BC: So you don’t care what the practical implications are?

I love the ruling class. I love their insufferable arrogance and condescension, and the way they ridicule "ordinary" citizens. "Answer the question!" orders Billsy. "We live in the real world here." Billsy, you shithead charmer, you.

I truly do love this argument, though. Do we need consistent adherence to principles? No, we don't! The ruling class lives in the real world, where you screw anyone who doesn't matter enough for your electoral success. Do we need federal protection of fundamental rights, like the right to marry -- especially when both state and federal governments tie a huge number of benefits and privileges to marriage? No, we don't!

And the "states' rights" argument is everybody's new fave, which is swell and all -- but not when it comes to basic, fundamental rights. It comes up all the time now with abortion rights -- which means a woman's right to her own body. Does a woman need a right to her own body? No, she doesn't! And now we're going to use it for marriage. Cool.

P.S. Oh, Billsy and like-minded conservoliberals or whatever the hell you are -- think on this:

It is one thing to be openly hated and despised, as gays and lesbians are by many on the right. We're used to that, and we got used to it a long time ago. As was required, we manufactured intellectual and emotional armor to protect ourselves. In the current climate, we have to put it on every single damned day. It weighs a great deal, and it exacts an awful price. But without it, we would suffer injuries too grievous to be borne.

But how much worse it is to be cajoled into taking off that armor -- to hear you tell us that you understand we're "just like you" in all the ways that matter, and that we're really "just the same" -- and then to read or hear about "how easy" you think it is to "make fun" of us, especially when our status as Freaks is too obvious. How much worse it is when we believe you, when you tell us you think we're all equal -- except that you can get married, while almost every leading Democrat will say, well, no, we can't get married. But we can have "civil unions." Because, you see, Freaks don't get married.

But we had believed you, so we took off the armor -- and then you plunged the sword deep into our guts. You revealed that many of you actually do think we're Freaks. Many of you don't believe we're really "just like you."